[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12442

Basile-z  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC|b2.t...@gmx.com |

--

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[d-bugmail--- via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12442

Basile B.  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 CC||b2.t...@gmx.com
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #6 from Basile B.  ---
Nowadays with -O same code is generated, likely since quire recently
(https://forum.dlang.org/thread/ovbduq$m3a$1...@digitalmars.com).

--

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12442

Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Priority|P2  |P5

--

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12442

--- Comment #5 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Andrej Mitrovic from comment #2)
 Similar performance worry about scope(success);
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.493.1358378360.22503.digitalmars-
 d...@puremagic.com?page=1

Can this be optimized separately from scope(exit)? I still have to go and
re-read that thread again but in the meantime maybe someone else can chime in.

--

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12442

Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
   Severity|normal  |enhancement

--- Comment #4 from Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com ---
See also https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12384

--

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[d-bugmail]

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12442


Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||c...@dawg.eu


--- Comment #3 from Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu 2014-04-05 04:13:57 PDT ---
The inefficiency comes from the extra call for the finally block, but we need a
good idea how to make it cheaper.
Maybe it's somehow possible to inline the finally block for the normal control
flow.

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[d-bugmail]

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12442



--- Comment #1 from Rainer Schuetze r.sagita...@gmx.de 2014-03-23 02:01:32 
PDT ---
The same happens with RAII:

struct SCount
{
this(bool) nothrow { recurse++; }
~this() nothrow { recurse--; }
}

uint wrapper_raii() nothrow
{
SCount sc = SCount(true);
return fun();
}

produces almost the same code as scope(exit).

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 12442] inefficient code with scope(exit)

[d-bugmail]

https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12442


Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com


--- Comment #2 from Andrej Mitrovic andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com 2014-03-23 
09:24:36 PDT ---
Similar performance worry about scope(success);
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.493.1358378360.22503.digitalmar...@puremagic.com?page=1

-- 
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---